121
Actually, That AI Drake and The Weeknd Song Is Not Eligible for a Grammy (gizmodo.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Actually, That AI Drake and The Weeknd Song Is Not Eligible for a Grammy::The song "Heart on My Sleeve" was pulled from streaming services after it was revealed to have been created with artificial intelligence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Than, by your logic, the highest charting song per genre out of the ones submitted would be the only ones which are awarded. This is demonstrably not the case with such awards programs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Except that’s not the arbitrary criteria set by the competition, which is the whole point of this discussion. Any competition can set an arbitrary set of rules. The Grammys are a completion, and as such can set any arbitrary rules they would like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You are fixated on the arbitrary nature of the rulesetting process as if that justifies a nonsensical rule.

    Which brings us full circle to the original point: you may as well ban anyone using any software at all to produce music. A flat ban on AI models is premature and will age like milk.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I’m of the opinion AI should be banned from all form of competition and anything that AI generates is not art. Art fundamentally requires human experiences. AI does not have that, and therefore can never produce anything more than a soulless, lifeless, worthless replica of what math thinks could be art.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Okay well that is entirely an opinion, so good for you?

    Yours is the same reaction people had to midi board and electric drum timers. Time will tell who was correct.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Neither of those (try to) create anything. They are only tools. AI is not a tool. It’s a game of numbers where if you try enough times you might find the right combination of things that work to make something semi-reasonable. There is no human creating anything with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah that about wraps it up here. You are arguing from the heart and not the head.

    AI tools are simply tools. They do not do anything of their own accord. Final edit falls entirely upon the human being putting it all together.

    When a hammer hits your thumb, do you fault the hammer?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    AI is functionally different than tools. Generative AI specifically is remixing content it has seen before in slightly different ways. It is doing all of the “work” in everything it creates. A hammer cannot do anything on its own, it requires active work to use it. Generative AI is like being a middle manager. You don’t create anything, you tell someone else to do all the work and then claim credit for it all.

    I have a degree in this shit. I know what I’m talking about. These are extremely complex mathematical models that nobody, including the researchers who create them, understand.

    They absolutely do things of their own accord. We do not understand how or why the decisions are made. Untucking that black box isn’t possible (as of yet).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •